Transcript

Great Lakes scientists are using new technology to track certain kinds of fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Researchers on lakes Huron and Superior are using a new computerized tagging system to track fish including trout and sturgeon. The new tag measures the water depth and temperature of the areas fish prefer to be. Henry Quinlin is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Ashland, Wisconsin:

“Upon learning the habitat preferences, habitat could be enhanced or created to benefit lake sturgeon or the other species that are being studied.”

Quinlin hopes the data can be used to design better habitat protection and restoration projects. He also says the program’s success is dependent on sport fisherman returning the tagged fish. That’s why his office is paying one hundred dollars a piece for fish with the special tags. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Transcript

Researchers have found that building housing along lakeshores affects the kinds
of birds drawn to the area. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Researchers have been looking at the differences between populations of birds along a lakeshore where houses have been built and where they’ve not. Alec Lindsay is a University of Michigan doctoral student who’s been working with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, studying the birds…

“What we found is that the birds that feed on insects were found less frequently on lakes
that had significant shoreline development than lakes that were undeveloped. And on the other hand, birds that feed on seeds which are not normally associated with these sorts of habitats were found more frequently on developed lakes than undeveloped lakes.”

So, lakeshore housing developments might be discouraging the kinds of birds that eat mosquitoes and keep down other insect pests. Conservation officials suggest homeowners should plant more native shrubs and grasses to encourage the bug-eating birds to stay.

Transcript

More and more cities and states in the Great Lakes region are testing for auto emissions in a new way: they’re asking the cars themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Nora Flaherty reports:

In the past, emissions testing mostly involved looking at cars’ tailpipe exhaust. But experts say that testing using newer cars’ on-board diagnostic systems can be much more useful. That’s because these systems are always testing the car in all driving conditions. They monitor more systems in the car. And they can even alert drivers to a problem before testing, lighting up the “check engine” light on the dashboard. John Mooney is with the Environmental Protection Agency. He says that on-board diagnostic testing is becoming common throughout the country:

“At this point 11 states have programs up and running. We’re expecting nine more states to come online this year, and 13 more states to follow within the next couple of years. So we’re gonna see a lot more of these programs in the future.”

The cities of Chicago and Milwaukee already require onboard diagnostic testing. Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, New York and Ohio are scheduled to start statewide programs in the next two years.

Long known for their expanses of shorn grass and highly manicured grounds, some golf course owners are taking a second look at their landscaping practices and striving to become more environmentally friendly. In the process, however, they seem to have made a few enemies. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King explains:

Transcript

Long known for their expanses of shorn grass and highly manicured grounds,
some golf course owners are taking a second look at their landscaping practices and striving to become more environmentally friendly. In the process, however, they seem to have made a few enemies. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King explains:

In a nutshell, here’s the story: Golf Course Goes Green, Neighbors See Red.

Golf course owner Tony Krebs recently saw the environmental “light” and decided to reduce his use of pesticides, gasoline, and water. He wants to mow less, grow wildflowers, re-introduce native grasses and attract wildlife. The neighbors – instead of cheering – have filed formal complaints with the city.

Golf courses have long been havens for precision landscaping, places where the great outdoors are shaped into forms… well, unfamiliar to Mother Nature. So to some residents around golf courses, a new, more natural landscape looks suspiciously like neglect. But it’s not.

For a little over a decade, the Audubon Society has been helping to “green” golf courses with their Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. While any course can become a member and receive environmental tips and guidelines, members earn certification by completing projects in specified areas. Out of an estimated 20,000 golf courses in the U.S., a select 2,300 have achieved certification.

In other words, the movement towards greater sustainability in the golf world is still young. And old standards of beauty die hard. According to an Audubon source, it’s not uncommon for bordering property owners to balk at a golf course’s naturalization. Just as one man’s treasure is another’s trash, apparently one man’s “wildflower” is another man’s “weed.”

But this is more than a beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder tale. Health officials have linked weed killers to everything from childhood leukemia, to gender malformation in frogs. Yet here we have well-to-do citizens banding together to fight for such chemicals.

“We live in a community,” one concerned resident said. “We have to be accountable to one another.” But he was talking about standards of property upkeep, not about public safety or about the delicate ecosystem we share.

He’s right, though, we are accountable to one another. And not only to one another, but to those who come long after we’re gone. There is a price to be paid for that so-called “perfect” landscape, and it’s a price we will all have to pay. It’s time for responsible citizens not only to tolerate sustainability, but to demand it.

Host Tag: Julia King lives and writes in Goshen, Indiana. She comes to us by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.

Two years ago, Oberlin College opened a new building that’s a radical departure from typical classroom architecture. Designed as a living laboratory of energy-efficiency and sustainable building techniques, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies has been turning heads ever since. The building has won two national awards for its innovative design, which features a rooftop solar array and a biological wastewater treatment system. But one man – himself an Oberlin College professor – says the Lewis Center’s design is seriously flawed. He says the building can’t deliver on its promise of high performance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer reports:

Transcript

Two years ago, Oberlin College opened a new building that’s a radical departure from typical classroom architecture. Designed as a living laboratory of energy-efficiency and sustainable building techniques, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies has been turning heads ever since. The building has won two national awards for its innovative design, which features a rooftop solar array and a biological wastewater
treatment system. But one man – himself an Oberlin College professor – says
the Lewis Center’s design is seriously flawed. He says the building can’t deliver on its promise of high performance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer reports:

The Lewis Environmental Studies Center at Oberlin College is not your average college building. The curved roof of the building – designed by architect William McDonough – holds a massive array of solar panels that soak up the sun’s energy and convert it to electricity for heat and light. Instead of sending wastewater to the local sewage plant, the building has its own on-site treatment facility that uses biological components – called
a “living machine” – for final cleansing. Outside, a small wetland recreates the natural ecosystem on which Oberlin was built. Even the building’s materials were made from sustainable resources designed to have little or no impact on the environment or human health. None of it is cutting-edge technology. But the Lewis Center does integrate multiple ecological-design concepts that work together to make it environmentally-friendly. It’s one of just a handful of so-called high-performance buildings now beginning to dot the American landscape. In addition, it’s a building that was designed to evolve as new technologies came along. It’s no wonder Professor David Orr, the building’s originator, claimed bragging rights even before the Center opened.

“This is a building that purifies its own wastewater, powers itself by
sunlight, has eliminated toxic chemicals and compounds.”

But one man takes issue with the high-performance claims the building’s
creators have made. John Scofield is also an Oberlin professor. He teaches
in the physics department and focuses his research on solar energy.
Scofield says even before the Center was built, it was clear the building’s
basic design was flawed.

“The architect has said on several occasions that the building is designed to generate more energy than it uses and I don’t believe that’s correct.”

Scofield’s primary critique is of the building’s energy systems, particularly those devoted to heating and cooling. He says there’s a real disconnect between what the designers claim the building can accomplish and the way it’s actually performing.

“Well, I think first of all, that the building springs out of some wonderful ideas and I very much support the design intent for the building. No, my concern has been, I think, false hopes. The promises for the building and the way that it was sold were I think not really in line with the reality of the building for a long time.”

(Peterson) “I think one thing you have to consider is the difference between a long-term goal and short-term performance.”

John Peterson is a professor in the environmental studies program. He
oversees the Center’s day-to-day functions.

“I mean, I think where we are right now is in a good spot right now. I think we can take a lot of pride in how the building is performing right now. This last year, for instance, we exported a fair amount of energy onto the grid. We also imported a lot of energy onto the grid, but on balance, we produced 53-percent of the energy that was consumed in the
building.”

Peterson admits there were some design flaws in the Lewis Center’s heating system when it was first put on line. The college has just replaced a high-energy consumption electric boiler with a more energy-efficient heat pump, which is the building’s primary source of heat. Last year, slightly more than half the building’s energy consumption went to heating during what proved to be a relatively mild winter. Even though the net energy use was 37-percent better than other Oberlin campus buildings, the college has
called on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for help in improving the
system. Paul Torsellini is a senior engineer with the Lab’s High-Performance Building Group in Golden, Colorado. He says, considering it’s a building designed to push the outside of the envelope, the Lewis Center is performing well.

“There are certainly issues with that building, as well as any other building that we build today. You know, one of the things with building engineering, which is, you know, a little different than, say, building a car. You build a car and you build lots of them. As opposed to buildings where, every time you build a building, it’s basically a custom
application.”

And so each building comes with unique problems. The High-Performance Group team is expert in innovative building design. Torsellini says over the next few months, he’ll be evaluating exactly how well the energy components of the Lewis Center perform, monitoring both the energy that’s being created and the energy that’s being used by the building’s different systems. Along with Torsellini, critic John Scofield believes the building can eventually make good on its promise to produce more energy than it uses.

“There’s a great case now for net energy exporters called the space station. So if cost is no object, it’s not a problem making a net energy exporter.”

Torsellini says it all comes down to how you measure success.

“You know, somewhere on the order of 40, 50-percent of the energy comes off the roof of that building. What other building in Oberlin or in the state of Ohio even comes close to thinking about that?”

More hard data will be needed to calculate the Lewis Center’s overall performance. Everyone is looking forward to a scientific peer review process that should help clarify the building’s performance achievements. But even if it’s not exactly perfect, both supporters and critics of the Lewis Environmental Studies Center hope the building will prove to be a good investment in scientific and educational research.

Transcript

Economists and urban planners are beginning to calculate some of the hidden costs of urban sprawl to society. The experts say those costs are often borne by people who don’t enjoy the benefits of living in the expensive new suburbs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

When a town in a sprawling metropolitan area limits development to big expensive houses, that means the people who work in the service stations and the restaurants have to live somewhere else. They are forced to commute. That means a greater demand for roads. And that costs all of us. William Testa is with the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. He says an even greater cost is lost opportunity for those who can’t even afford to make the commute to the jobs…

“The higher costs may be on people in the inner-city – or wherever – in low-income areas who can’t afford to live close to the places where the job demand is, where the jobs are being created.”

Testa says developing suburbs should consider building affordable housing for workers. If that doesn’t happen, he says society should find a way for those suburbs to pay the cost of their decisions.

Economists and urban planners are beginning to look at the hidden costs of sprawl. They're finding many people pay, but only a few benefit from the costs. Photo by Lester Graham.

Even if you don’t live in an upscale suburb in a sprawling metropolitan area, you’re likely paying to support that suburb. Economists and urban planners find there are hidden costs that are not paid by the people who live in those suburbs. Instead, much of the costs are paid by the majority of us who don’t live there. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
http://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/06/graham_062402.mp3

Transcript

Even if you don’t live in an upscale suburb in a sprawling metropolitan area, you’re likely paying to support that suburb. Economists and urban planners find there are hidden costs that are not paid by the people who live in those suburbs. Instead, much of the costs are paid by the majority of us who don’t live there. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

If you just bought a home that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a neighborhood of similar big expensive houses… you probably think you’ve already paid your fair share to attain the good life. The mortgage is a monthly reminder. And the real estate taxes are another. But the price you’re paying is just the beginning of the costs that make it possible for you to live there. Much of the rest of it is paid by people outside of your suburb; people who never realize the benefits.

Myron Orfield is the author of the book “American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality.” He says the people who live in the upscale suburbs get the advantages of the good schools and the nice roads… but they don’t pay all of the underlying costs. Much of that is passed on to others…

“Most of us don’t-aren’t able to live in the communities with 400-thousand dollar houses and massive office parks and commercial industrial. Only about seven or eight percent of us can afford to live there and the rest of the region really pays the freight for that.”

That’s because the rest of the region pays the county and state taxes that make the roads and nice schools possible. Orfield says a residential area alone doesn’t generate enough tax revenue to pay the full costs.

“So we all subsidize that development and so when all the resources of the region concentrate in six or seven percent of the region’s population, it really hurts the vast majority of the people.”

And while the cost of supporting the upscale neighborhoods is substantial, that’s just the beginning of the hidden costs of sprawl.

In most cases, those nice suburbs are nice because they’re situated away from the hub-bub of the daily grind of work and traffic and hassle. The people who live there might have to drive a little farther to get to work, but, hey, when they DO get home, it’s a complete escape, worth the extra drive time. Right?

William Testa is an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. As an economist, he measures things by how efficient they might be. He says driving a little farther from the nice suburbs to work and back wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
“If people want to travel further because they can live better, then it’s their choice and they feel they live better with a longer commute, then we wouldn’t necessarily call that an inefficiency. When it can be inefficient is when people don’t pay
for the costs of their own travel.”

And that’s the rub. If you decide to drive 30 miles to work instead of ten miles, the taxes on the extra gasoline you burn don’t begin to pay the extra costs of that decision… Again, William Testa…

“The spill-over costs that they don’t internalize when you decide to get in your car and drive someplace, such as to your job, is environmental degradation, the cost of road maintenance isn’t directly paid for when you decide how many miles to drive, maintain the road, the police, ambulance services and the like. So, economists would say that driving is not priced correctly to have people efficiently choose how many miles they choose to drive.”

While urban sprawl’s economic costs to society are substantial, there might be larger costs.

When an upper-middle income family chooses to live in an enclave of others in their tax bracket, it’s a given that the people who teach their children, who police the neighborhoods, and fight the fires are not going to be able to afford to live there.

In fact, those who would work in the restaurants and at the service stations in many cases can’t take those jobs because they can’t afford the housing and they can’t afford the commute.

Emily Talen is an urban planner at the University of Illinois. She says
that’s a cost that can’t always be measured in dollars and cents. It’s a separation of the haves and the have-nots.

“Social cost is that fragmentation, that separation, that segregation really on an income level more than anything else.”

Talen says when people decide they can afford the good life in the nice suburb, the new American dream, they often only think of their own success, but not about the costs to others.

“This is what our nation is founded on. I mean, it is founded on the pursuit of happiness and I think that that has been kind of problematic for people thinking in terms of their own individual happiness rather than issues about the common good.”

And so, Talen says when a town decides it will only allow expensive houses to be built, it’s decided that all labor for its services will be imported from out of town. The expense of that decision is borne by everyone else… especially the lower-income people forced to commute.

William Testa at the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago says in the end, that cost might be the greatest one to society at large.

“This, it seems to me, is un-American and very un-democratic and something that we ought to think about very seriously. Could we really live with ourselves in a society where there aren’t housing options available for people to make a livelihood, to follow the opportunity for their livelihood.”

The experts say there’s nothing wrong with pursuing the good life, as long as everyone is paying their fair share of the cost. They say right now, that’s not happening… and those who never benefit from a pleasant life in the suburbs are paying much of the cost for others to do so.

At a recent meeting in Detroit, the G-8 energy ministers were looking for alternatives to non-renewable resources such as oil and gas. Nuclear energy was high on that list of alternatives. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, on the north shore of Lake Ontario, at least, renewing the drive towards nuclear power is becoming too costly:

Transcript

At a recent meeting in Detroit, the G-8 energy ministers were looking for alternatives to non-renewable resources such as oil and gas. High among those alternatives was emphasis on nuclear energy. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, on the north shore of Lake Ontario, at least, renewing the drive towards nuclear power is becoming too costly:

The nuclear power plant at Pickering, on the shores of Lake Ontario, holds some of the oldest reactors in North America. Environmentalists have long argued that the 30-year-old reactors in the Pickering power plant should be mothballed. But a couple of years ago, Ontario Power Generation said it would completely overhaul the reactors, estimating a cost of about one billion dollars Canadian.

But the costs, complexity, and time it would take to do the work turned out to be more than anyone expected. The scheduled re-opening has now been twice delayed …and the cost of doing the work has already soared to more than two billion dollars.

While environmentalists in the Great Lakes region may take heart at the delays and the increased
costs, the Ontario government is sticking with it.

Senior officials at the plant say no matter what the costs, re-furbishing is by far the best option for the province. They say even carrying the two billion dollar price tag, it would be competitive with other energy sources such as gas and oil. And, in that context, they say, it still makes commercial sense.

The U.S. EPA is finishing a 17-month study of the emissions at ethanol plants in the Great Lakes region. As a result, the EPA is asking ethanol producers to clean up their plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The U.S. EPA is finishing a 17-month study of the emissions at ethanol plants in the
Great Lakes region. As a result, the EPA is asking ethanol producers to
clean up their plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

The tests of the ethanol plants show unexpectedly high levels of carbon dioxide,
methanol, and formaldehyde in their emissions. Monte Shaw is a spokesperson for the
Renewable Fuels Association. He says the industry will comply with the EPA’s request:

“All of the industry is committed to doing whatever’s necessary, if anything. Some plants won’t have
to change a thing. But if there are some where the EPA wants to make modifications, we’re
committed to working with them, and addressing their concerns as quickly as possible.”

Shaw says most bigger plants already have the controls in place, and the smaller ones
that are in violation will comply with the request. Critics of the EPA including the Clean Air
Trust and the American Lung Association say the changes need to be a requirement, not a
voluntary program as it is now.

Environmentalists say upstate New York’s six million acre Adirondack Park is suffering the most damage from acid rain in the country. To help control that, the state could soon pass the toughest power plant emission regulations in the U.S. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports, some critics say the new regulations will not solve the problem:

Transcript

Environmentalists say upstate New York’s six million acre Adirondack Park is suffering the most damage from acid rain in the country. To help control that, the state could soon pass the toughest power plant emission regulations in the U.S. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports, some critics say the new regulations will not solve the problem:

The new regulations would force New York power plants to reduce emissions of the two leading causes of acid rain. The plants would have to cut sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than half of 1990 Clean Air Amendment levels. John Sheehan is the spokesman for the advocacy group, the Adirondack Council.

“We feel that New York is setting an example for the rest of the United States…this was the step that we needed to show the Midwest that we were willing to take in order to ask them to do the same thing.”

But many power plant owners in the state feel singling out New York’s facilities will put them at a competitive disadvantage. They also say reducing New York’s emissions will not prevent acid rain from reaching the Adirondacks. To do that, they say power plants across the country would have to adopt similar regulations. The New York state Department of Environmental Conservation is currently reviewing the draft proposal and public comment. The agency expects to have a final decision sometime this fall.